I am still hard at work on my full review of the Sigma 50mm F/1.4 DG HSM Art, but I wanted to take a quick break and do a comparison to the Canon 50mm f/1.2. The Canon is widely considered the best 50mm you can get for Canon (manual focus Zeiss not included) and so I wanted to see how the new Sigma stacks up.

All of the following shots were shot on a Canon 6D with an aperture of F/1.4. (Afterall, the whole point of a prime with F/1.4 is shooting wide open, so that is where I focused my attention with this comparison.)

Scene 1: The Dandelion

The first test scene of the day was a nice dandelion in some shade. In this scene, I specifically was looking for bokeh and sharpness. Before I tell you my thoughts on how they compare, take a look at the two shots yourself. Which one is which?

Ok, the first shot was the Canon and the second shot was the new Sigma. Web sized like the two images above are, it is hard to tell which is which right off the bat. My initial thoughts though are that the Canon’s bokeh is slightly more appealing, the Sigma’s seems to be a hair more “busy” but overall they are very similar.

As far as sharpness, in this scene it was a bit of a wash. In my opinion anyways, maybe the Sigma was a tad sharper. But they are both pretty close. (Plus a dandelion like this is somewhat hard to focus on in the first place.)

Scene 2: The Tree Trunk

The next scene on my comparison tour was the tree trunk just off the walking path in the city park. For this scene in particular, I was really looking for the the sharpness of the bark and the bokeh of the park behind the tree. Just as before, here are the two shots, can you tell which is which?

Again, hard to tell right off the bat from these small web sized images. So let’s punch in on the 100% crops and you will see a big difference. Just to head off you Canonites, these shots were focused in live view, on a tripod. So “perfect” focus was confirmed prior to taking the shots.

For me, the Sigma looks a tad sharper again. The Canon has a little bit of a “haze” going on. But still looks pretty good.

The Test

Ok, now that I have walked you through a few scenes. I have a test for you. Can you tell me which of the shots below are the Sigma, and which are the Canon?

A:

B:

C:

D:

E:

F:

G:

H:

Which Letters Are The Sigma Shots? (Select The Letters That Correspond To The Sigma Images)

In Conclusion

Overall I feel that these two lenses are pretty similar, but if I had to give the edge to one lens, I would personally go with the Sigma. The Canon does have the advantage of being able to go to F/1.2, but in the real world, the difference between F/1.2 and F/1.4 in your shots will be negligible.

What are your thoughts here? Do you agree with what I am seeing from these two lenses or do you think that the Canon edges out the Sigma?

Update:

Some of you requested some portrait shots. The best I can do tonight is these shots of my very squirmy kids. Still, you can see the Sigma edge the Canon in sharpness and the Canon seems to have a creamier bokeh.

Anthony Thurston is a photographer based in the Salem, Oregon area specializing in Boudoir. He recently started a new project, Fiercely Boudoir to help support the growing boudoir community. Find him over on Instagram. You may also connect with him via Email.

Larger aperture tends to give better bokeh. My experience showed these lenses compare test was not fair to Sigma. To create fair between Sigma and Canon then it must set at f/1.4, not f/1.2 during the test procedure.

I had both EF 50mm f/1.2L and f/1.4 as I sold it while ago because they were JUNK. I bought Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART and discovered this lens outperformance against both Canon and Carl Zeiss easily.

So far I shot over a thousand pictures with ART lenses. I own five ART lenses now. The ART lenses are very solid with no compare with Canon EF lenses even Carl Zeiss ZE/ZF.

I was not happy with Canon lately because their equipment was lousy not like old days with R/FL/FD and FDn lenses because they were very sharpness compared against EF. No wonder Sony mirrorless users preferred to use old Canon lenses for their camera through an adapter. Now we see a new generation of mirrorless cameras, Nikon Z series, and Canon R series. The future users will run to buy used FD or FDn lenses, therefore, they will be in high demand and raise the price.

Kudos to Sigma for their hard work to develop new ART lenses and sell at a reasonable cost. Hopefully, in the coming future, Sigma may sell 50mm f/1.2 ART or perhaps for f/0.95. The only thing I discouraged Sigma’s camera did not have full-frame with high megapixel resolution.

There is not much to choose between the lenses at f/1.4 and narrower. Some people will prefer the “look” from one, some from the other.

But the Canon goes to f/1.2. That is the main difference in performance, Anyone choosing between these lenses would like to see if f/1.2 gives significantly nicer background blur, bokeh and subject separation.yet this review has not shown us images from the Canon lens at f/1.2.

And there is a lot more than “sharpness” and maximum aperture to consider. The Canon lens is weather sealed. I believe it is the only weather-sealed 50mm lens that is currently available in the Canon mount. That alone could swing the decision for many photographers.

Different lenses for different purposes. The Sigma is sharper and good for product shots and architecture. The Canon is a tool with more options for telling stories. There are imperfect but purposeful elements in an L lens that soften the textures while the other elements keep the edges sharp. This adds a dreamy like soft-glow appearance to your shots. Mild chromatic aberration, which can be controlled, can be used as a tool to add a color contrast to your images which gives it an analog je ne se quoi to your photos that you can’t accomplish with any slider in Photoshop. This is why you hear the word “ethereal” when people describe the photos they’ve taken with their L lenses. You want that analog imperfection and ethereal quality in an image as an option when you are telling a story because you have very little to work with in a single image. You don’t want to just deliver a coherent sentence. You want an emotive reaction by the viewer and have the most tools available to you.

Canon looks better. trees are one thing but the child with sigma looks like he was in a taxidermist shop … and also has that silk envelop thing gooing on for it that only a few lenses have, like the meyer 35mm f4.5 or the Zeiss biogon 35mm f2.8. Sigma looks 2D, just like a print, and obviously very unflatering to the child where Canon makes wanna hold him and brings a timid smile …. The test was meant to cheat canon rfom its greatest quality, 3d with subject at 2m on a street where it simply shines and does that different planes thing like old voightlander heliar …. people looking for sharpness should go for the Sigma ! but … the Canon has that thing i mean if you see it you undertsand, people with mathematical or engineering backgroun probably dont see what i am talking about …

Sigma hands down the better lens. But you don’t get any bragging rights stating you have the Sigma in your bag. I dumped my Nikon 50 for the Sigma. Don’t care about bragging rights for the lens maker. I like the results.

Anthony, in your quiz above, can you please specify which pics belong to which lens? I can tell by the results what pics are getting the highest percentage of votes but as far which belong to which is unclear. Thanks!

Thanks a mill Anthony
You seem to be the only one who really tried to COMPARE the two, and for that thanks a million!
I’m still not 100% sure, what to get and I think that is exactly what one should take from this comparison. The differences are so subtle that it comes to personal preference as in real world, the differences are NOT visible, if one can’t compare! I don’t know anyone who takes first a pic with the one lens and than the other and asks the client which one they prefer!

The only thing I need to do to choose between the Sigma and the Canon, is look at the 100% crops of the tree trunk photo. However, I can even see it in most of the small web samples too. The Sigma clearly has better contrast and because of that, the bokeh appears slightly less creamy. Images taken with the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art are sharper and have that really wonderful ‘pop’. Just look at the baby photo! I think this lens does not only produce crispy colour photos, but also super strong black and white photos. What a great lens this is.

However, if you are a fan of the softer low contrast Canon look and don’t care about corner softness (i.e. when you like photographing flowers, babies and other subjects that don’t benefit from the extra contrast and detail) or if you just don’t care, the Sigma is not for you. I f you want ultimate image quality and excellent build quality at an affordable price, get the Sigma. You can always lower the contrast and sharpness in post processing, but you can never recover details that was never there in the first place.

I guess it will be a little sad for some Canon 50mm f/1.2 (and Nikon 50mm f/1.4G) owners to see that their lens is now surpassed by a cheaper third party offering, but that’s just how it works. New and better products are developed every day. I had the Canon f/1.2 lens, but now I’m the proud owner of the clearly superior Sigma.

I though about it for a while and decided to go with the Sigma for the exact reasons you give here. You can’t recover detail that was never there. Also, with the Sigma I spend less time post processing, because the images are just better straight out of the camera. Now that I use the Sigma, I hardly need to boost the contrast and sharpness. There really is a significant difference.

I am almost going to buy a canon 50mm f1.2 just before I read the article. It`s seemed totally similar with each other.Should let deferences between Canon and Sigma slide. Sigma lens is more affordable for more people. However, Sigma lens is too BIGGER than Canon one.Worring about balance of camera if it adpot with the Sigma.

I think the price difference is worth the extra weight. It will balance just fine with most cameras. Even if the lens is heavier then your camera, it shouldn’t be a problem. Then the lens helps stabilize your lightweight camera.

Oh, the Sigma and Canon are NOT similar at all. The Sigma is sharper and has better contrast. Check out the various test on the internet and take a good look at the samples in this post on a calibrated good quality monitor.

Thanks so much for this review! One question that I had about the new Sigma is if it’s heavy? My husband and I travel all over the world, and I love the Canon 50mm’s because they are so compact and relatively light. A friend mentioned that the Sigma might be on the heavier side. Did you find when shooting with the Sigma that it was heavy, and possibly a bit of a nuisance when possibly site seeing? Do you think the Canon 50mm 1.2 would be better for travel? Thoughts? Thanks!

Dear Anthony, thanks for the 50mm Match. I must confess that I am now a bit disoriented. I own à canon 50m f1,2 for few and I can say I am more than happy with its performance & ergonomics. However, It is true that sharpness under f2 is not amazing. Another thing, canon 50 f1.2 has often some back or front focus phenomenons. With my 5D MIII, I corrected it from -10 level of AF Micro Adjustments. As I am very “sharpness” addict, I m now very hesitant. This new 50mm is very exciting , but it is also very “big” and heavy.

Anthon, do you if the sigma is “environment proof” like Canon L series lenses (dust, water ….)?

It now appears as if the Canon lenses occupy the position that earlier the German lenses did (In “ancient” history 70’s – 80′) If you took 2 pictures one with a German lens the second with a Japanese Lens, The German lens while being “sharper” had a lower contrast and so the equivalent Japanese lens wold appear sharper… Taken down to the film emulsion level a “fuzzy appearing” German lens would in fact have the same resolution if not greater than the Japanese lens. I think it all comes down to what is the effect/style YOU are looking for?

THANK YOU for this! This article was far from useless. I am a photographer and my dad loves learning about lenses/cameras so when one of us comes across a neat article, we’ll email it to one another. I emailed this to him before I even read it because we’ve been discussing these two lenses in comparison to one another in the past week! Again, thanks so much. This was way more than just an article, but another way to connect with my dad. You’re appreciated.

Anthony,
I recently got my hands on the Sigma 50mm Art as well and did a quick comparo. Is it just me or is the Sigma a little darker (the transmission is lower) compared to the Canon 1.2 at the same settings? I personally concur with your assessment of the Sigma and I like the pictures compared to the Canon.

Hmmm, I’m curious as to why you say this?? I would have liked to see the Canon at 1.2 vs Sigma 1.4 as the point of buying either lens is shooting at max aperture but I see little difference with both lens at 1.4 and generally give the Sigma a slight advantage in contrast and sharpness with little to complain in the bokeh department…

In this case, the higher price of the Canon doesn’t reflect the optical quality at all. The Sigma is clearly superior, however difficult that is to accept for some current owners of the Canon 50mm f/1.2.

I would like to point out that the dandelion 100% images are exactly the same.
Right click and open the both images in a new tab, swtich between them and you’ll see the only thing thats actually changing is the text.

Hello everyone, I happen to own a 50mm 1.2 and a sigma 35mm f1.4 (which I’m assuming have the same build as the 50mm), one of the biggest problem I have with sigma is the build quality. I don’t know if it’s just mine, but after a while the middle barrel creaks, and wobble. Versus the 50mm L is built like a tank. Of course there’s a big difference in pricing.

I’m surprised to hear that, my 5 year old Sigma 50mm f/1.4 has been used a LOT and it’s still good as new apart from a slight squeak when focusing! Canon L series are certainly better build quality, but for the money, Sigma are making some great alternatives.

I own a Canon 7D yet if I want razor sharp images I always drop back to my Konica Minolta 7D and my Sigma 90mm lens. The problem with Canon is its cmos algorithms and default lens focus settings. True you can go in and adjust your lens in customs features yet the settings used for portraits will not work if you immediately switch to macro work or vise versa. As proof I sent my Canon 7D camera in two times for soft hazy focus and each time it returned with a note saying “the focus settings are within factory tolerances” after a third time sending it in they gave me a new camera and true to form my new 7D has the same inherent soft focus problem. Gone are the days of razor blade sharp lens like that from Hasselblad. As a result of this pervasive Canon soft focus problem found on all theirmodels, a growing number of my friends are opting for a lens adapter so as to use a Hasselblad manual focus lens on their digital cameras. The clarity is second to none and in the end having to manual focus to achieve a sharper image is a sacrifice any real photographer is willing to make!

This is great – thanks very much! Although you reckon the balance tips in favour of the Sigma, I’m greatly reassured that my 50L is a better choice for me; I’d far rather have a small bokeh advantage than a small sharpness advantage. Indeed, that’s specifically why I paid so much for the 50L. Seems to me that the Sigma (and the Otus for that matter) would be a great studio lens, but not so great for everyday, walkabout use.

I mainly shoot weddings and would really like to see a comparison of the autofocus on the two lenses on moving targets and focusing in really low light (think indoor reception type lighting). Also, how well does each lens track a target in Ai Servi mode?

Thanks for taking the time to make a comparison of both lenses as this is important to me for a future purchase. My conclusion is sharpness vs bokeh wgere each may have a slight edge. Will be interesting to see how Canon will respond and if the rebates will bring down the price for the 50L.

People are so rude and ungrateful these days! Having their butt on a chair and be like “It’s lame! It’s suck! I want something else! Quick because I’m rude and I’m think than you are my b*tch! So you betta work b*tch!”

Your review/comparasion is definitely not usuless! Thank you for this one. I’m really excited to buy this lens and I enjoyed your test, the game was also fun! Like every article it’s take time to test and then write it. So thank’s!

In other hand I won’t say no for more portraits haha, because I will buy it for portrait too. So if you can do more portraits please, I and we will appreciate it. Sorry for my bad english, I’m french.

How I wish modern reviewers would dig out a few copies of Amateur Photographer from 40 years ago and learn how to do a proper lens comparison. What I learnt from this was a huge price difference – and that point was made by a commenter.

Thank you for the quick comparison summary. The differences are quite negligible between the two lens in terms of image quality. What I would like to know is focusing speed & the ‘noise’ level (motor) between the two lens when you update your review would be greatly be appreciated.

What are your thoughts on autofocus? When I want something sharp, I use manual, but when I don’t have that luxury I use autofocus, the 50 1.2 misses a lot more than it hits. I’m using a 5D M2. I’m interested in selling the 1.2 and getting the Sigma if the autofocus proves to be better in those kinds of situations.

I have to admit that I am a bit disappointed the bokeh of the Sigma is not smother. The 50L just looks much nicer. I care a lot more about the difference in bokeh than the difference in sharpness. But the sigma is still way cheaper.

I am trying to get my hands on a Canon 50mm F/1.4 to compare to as well. But, we know that the Canon 50mm F/1.2 is better than the Canon 50mm F/1.4, so if you want to upgrade, the Sigma is a great option that will save you quite a bit over the 50mm F/1.2.

I hate to sound so cynical, but this is CLASSIC PIXEL PEEPING! You can looking at individual spores on a dandelion for pete’s sake! They are close enough! Hell I’d wager the old canon f1.8 would do just as fine. Why are people so obsessed with “the best” out there? I use the f1.8 with the metal base for weddings all the time! And it’s the lens which came with my CANON ELAN 35mm SLR!

Yeah, it’s a bit cynical. Not all of the images were 100% crops. You can still get a feel for color rendition of the lenses, and how the OOF areas behave. The best part of the comparison is you have to look at the images side by to determine if the extra cost is worth it.

Yeah it is a pixel peeping and measurebating. But this is SLRLounge.com and there are tons of other sites that do this in reviews or comparisons. If they didn’t do this it would just be like reading the forums where people would have a much heavier bias towards a brand.
Remember, you are reading a gear review/comparison article. It can be as easy as “Choose Sigma because reasons ABC or go Canon for DEF” and then it would be a simple paragraph or two article.

Learn and grow with full access to ALL of our comprehensive, industry-leading education, systems, and tools
- developed by Pye Jirsa of Lin and Jirsa Photography, one of the most successful photography studios in the world.